Chapter 5. A. J. Linzmayer

Extra-Sensory Perception, by J. B. Rhine, [1934], at sacred-texts.com

p. 59

CHAPTER 5

A. J. Linzmayer

Mr. Linzmayer was our first really striking subject, and it is perhaps only natural that we should especially appreciate him and his work. Also he has been very patient and co-operative in this work over a period of almost three years under conditions that were often very trying.

Linzmayer was an undergraduate student in this University when he began to work with us. He is of German-American stock, has excellent health, and is a normal, alert and intelligent young man. He is fairly sociable and makes friends easily. Although he is very dependable and even somewhat methodical, there seems to be a dash of the artistic, too, in Linzmayer, pretty much undeveloped. He seems to be, on the whole, a quite well integrated personality. He is not especially religious, and is not given to unnatural or mystical interpretations of things. But it is interesting to note that he states that his mother has had monitional experiences which made her aware in some extra-sensory manner of the death or other trouble of relatives and friends, in several instances. He himself has had no unusual parapsychological experience, except that he plays cards with marked success and has many good "hunches". He was only slightly hypnotizable and was somewhat negatively suggestible in his relaxed condition. His jaw set and protruded with a distinct show of resistance, and suggestions brought contrary responses. This point will be of special interest later and is mentioned for that reason.

There has been no slightest indication of dishonesty in Linzmayer. He has been scrupulously careful to avoid having any undue advantage given him. He responded properly to temptations deliberately put in his way when he was under the influence of the narcotic sodium amytal. But, although I am fully convinced now, after years of acquaintance, of his excellent character, he was under continual surveillance during all the experiments in which he took part. There was no chance given for any effective deception.

As stated earlier, Linzmayer was in two of our group tests for clairvoyant perception and was the highest scorer of both groups. He was tried in the trance tests for telepathy but could not go into a deep trance. And at first in the waking condition he did not do very well (4 hits in 20 with the Zener cards, which is just chance average). The next trial he was given was on May 21, 1931, and in this he gave the very high score of 21 hits in 45 trials. These were made in the waking condition, with undifferentiated telepathic and clairvoyant possibilities. In these he got nine correct calls in succession under most excellent conditions. He was not even looking at the cards in these series; his face was turned towards

p. 60

the window; I held each card face down, under my hand, after first looking at it. Also I visualized the figures in such conditions, without verbalization, as any one may do with deliberate effort. The image, not its name, was in consciousness; so the "involuntary whispering" ghost need not, I think, haunt us at this point. The chance of his getting, as he did, nine straight hits, is alone so small as to be convincing; namely, one in about 2 million. He did this three times.

Unfortunately, Linzmayer had examinations during the ten days following and could give us only three days’ work before leaving the campus for a summer appointment. During these three days he ran 535 more trials for the regular purpose of evidence, which occupied most of the time, and 900 in a special experiment during the last few hours. 360 of the total 600 regular trials were still under the same conditions; i.e., undifferentiated E.S.P. with the observer looking at the face of the card. The other 240 trials were made as pure clairvoyance (P.C.) tests. The scoring was about the same under the two conditions, as may be seen from Table X.

TABLE X

Comparison, Pure Clairvoyance with Undifferentiated E.S.P.
A. J. Linzmayer, 1931

Apparently the added telepathic condition did not help Linzmayer to score. In fact, he expressed a preference for the pure clairvoyance condition. It seemed clear to me after questioning him that when I was looking at the card he was making no effort to perceive my images, but was striving merely to perceive clairvoyantly the card-figure itself. The cards were held or the backs of the cards were seen, or both, by Linzmayer in 250 of the 600 trials, and these yielded 88 successes, 38 above the chance average. This is 8.8 per 25 trials and is lower than Linzmayer's average for this period. Holding and seeing the cards did not appear to help this subject; they may even have been a distraction and have caused the drop in rate.

Of the total 360 telepathy-plus-clairvoyance tests, 145 were carried on with a motor going that would effectively submerge any conceivable "involuntary whispering". And in 120 of these (145) the cards were screened and Linzmayer's eyes turned away. These yielded for the 145, a score of 68 or 11.3 hits per 25, and for the 120 trials, 57, which is about

p. 61

the same (11.4). These are very significant scores and, under such conditions, none of the sensory modes of perception were at work. The 120 trials, just referred to above, alone yield a positive deviation of 33, which is 11.2 times the p.e. (±2.95). This excludes the "mere chance" hypothesis by odds of safely over a trillion to one. (The tables available to me do not go so high and it is not necessary to quote such odds for the ratios of deviation to p.e. that exceed 10. Such a value is, in any field of science, taken for a practical certainty. In fact, we seldom reach, and never require, such high probability in the general business of living.)

Of the pure clairvoyant tests only 55 were made with cards screened from the subject's view, but these 55 yielded 22 correct trials, a doubling of the chance average of 11. 50 other clairvoyant trials however, were made with perfectly new cards, in which no opportunity was given for relating the figures on the face of possible back-markings or other features. These 50 give 17 correct, 7 above chance average. In the total 105 just described we may regard the conditions as not in any known way allowing for sensory perception. They yielded 18 above chance average, about 7 times the probable error, which gives odds against the hypothesis of mere accident or chance, of about 100,000 to 1. The mode of screening here used was that of simply covering the back of the card with the hand, and laying it down still covered on the table or a book. The cards then used were 2″ × 3¼″; my hand is large enough to cover the card pretty thoroughly.

The 120 trials described in the second paragraph back, along with the 105 of the last paragraph, make 225 trials under very good conditions for the exclusion of the senses, in the perception of the card images. They yielded so unquestionably impressive a total deviation, too, that no one who comprehends the high value of X = 13, which was given, can accept the view that there is nothing here but happy accident.

On the occasion in which Linzmayer got his largest series of consecutive successes, 15, he also got 21 correct in the whole 25 trials. He was seated in my car with the engine going. We had been driving for the purpose of resting him. He was leaning back over the seat so that his eyes saw only the roof of the car—no mirrors, no shiny surfaces in line or at the angle necessary for him to see. I held the pack out of sight face down, shuffled it several times as we ran the series and drew the cards with my right hand over the pack, keeping the drawn card concealed as I leaned forward, tilted it a little, glanced at it and laid it on a large record book which lay across Linzmayer's knees. Linzmayer called the card about 2 seconds after I laid it down, and I said "Right" or "Wrong", and laid it on the appropriate pile. We counted and recorded at the end of the 15 calls, here, and then at the end of each 5 calls after. Ordinarily we recorded each call when made but on this occasion we continued in order to

p. 62

avoid a break in the unusual scoring and after the break there was a drop. The easy informality of this situation may have made the brilliant run of 15 unbroken hits possible. But there was no lack of caution, nevertheless. The probability of getting 15 straight successes on these cards is (1/5)¹⁵ which is one over 30 billion. And 21 in 25 is, of course, much less probable.

Now for a very different set of results: during the 600 trials just described, Linzmayer would sometimes run 5, 10 and even 15 trials without a success. He said his mental attitude had a lot to do with it. When he had no confidence in himself he would do poorly. What gave him confidence or took it away he could not say, beyond the belief that success gave him confidence and failure discouraged him. If, because of a mere mental attitude, I reasoned, we could throw him down in his scoring, that would give us an excellent check on the extra-sensory character of the perception. That is, it would be a control test on the point of possible deception, conscious or unconscious, if we used the same cards and conditions. Then, too, the validity of the belief of Linzmayer that his attitude mattered was an intriguing question. Finally, there was the suggestion from the work of Richet ¹ that long series of clairvoyant trials lower the scoring, even below chance average. I therefore combined the objectives, as could well be done in an experiment designed to lower Linzmayer's score as far as I could. We were through with the higher record for evidence of E.S.P. We were after data that would help in the natural explanation and only indirectly help the proof. The proof significance of a value of X (Dev./p.e.) = 17.9, such as his first results gave, needs no further data, so far as mathematical reassurance goes.

When on the afternoon of June 3, then, Linzmayer was about to leave as per arrangement—and the last results had been poor (4 hits in 20) due possibly to general fatigue or waning of interest with eagerness to be off—I urged him strongly to continue for a little longer, stating that I had just thought of a good experiment for which I needed some more data. His disinclination was obvious, since he had planned to leave with a friend the following day and had packing yet uncompleted. But his courtesy and good nature prevailed. We sat down, he a bit reluctantly and I enthusiastically, and I pushed through 500 trials of "pure clairvoyance" tests with Linzmayer handling the cards himself, looking at their backs when he cared to. I even omitted to cut the pack between runs most of the time in order to allow every loophole for an alternate hypothesis. In the first 100 he dropped from his previous level of about 40 hits, all the way down below chance average (which is 20) to 14, a negative deviation of 6, twice the p.e. On the next 100, still below, he got 16. On the third 100 he

p. 63

rose to chance average exactly, but plunged down again to 17 on the 4th 100 and again down to 14 on the 5th 100.

Here was a negative deviation of 19 in 500 trials, which is more than three times the p.e., almost consistently below chance. Heretofore we had gone very slowly, taking time out when Linzmayer did not feel like going on. Since he felt he could work only in a certain mental state, we endeavored not to endanger that by haste or disregard for his feelings. Now, on the other hand, we pushed ruthlessly on. When Linzmayer protested against the low scores and evidently felt badly about them, I urged him, none too sympathetically, to keep on and they would improve. I extracted a reluctant promise from him to work a short time the next morning and, at that time again, went at my heartless task. But Linzmayer's unhappiness over the low scoring, which he did not know was equally valuable to me, spurred him to a renewed interest and effort. The 6th 100 rose to 27. I should have stopped then until I had him down again in a more depressed condition. But his approaching departure stimulated me to go on through a 7th, 8th and 9th 100. These ran 21, 23 and 14. He then insisted that he had to leave; there was a limit to my own willingness to press him and we had to stop the interesting series at a very promising point.

The 900 trials yielded 166 hits, 16 below np. This is less than 2 times the p.e. and is not independently significant. In later visits I have had the opportunity, on odd occasions, to raise this "negativism series" to 1, 650 trials, with a yield of 291, a drop of 39 from the np (330). This is 3.6 times the p.e., which approximates significance and, when computed by formula to allow for distribution, X = 4.7. This gives meaning to the series. The only point I make in this low-score work is that it suggests a new feature for further investigation, one that tends to relate this mode of perception to other mental processes. One further small but striking point in these data is that, while ordinarily the first calls are highest, here they are lower than average. Selecting the first calls of the runs or series, we find that Linzmayer, in his regular work, tends to run higher in percentage of hits on the first call than on any later call. He averaged on "firsts" over the regular work the score of 10.4 hits per 25, while his general average for the same period (to 3-24-32) was 7.5. But in the low-score experiment, where the average per 25 on the whole data was 4.4 hits per 25, the first dropped to 2.1 in 25. While not perhaps finally proved, there appears pretty clearly to be some definite reversal of the function, a kind of negativistic clairvoyance. It should here be recalled that under light hypnosis Linzmayer shows distinct negativism; in the waking state this is, however, not noticeable.

p. 64

TABLE XI

"Lowering-Score" Clairvoyant Tests, A.J.L., 1931-32

These data were of course taken under special conditions and are not to be lumped off with the regular records. But even if so included, unfairly, the work of Linzmayer would still stand out with a high value, as may be seen at the close of the chapter.

We have been able to get Linzmayer to visit us several times, even though he did not return to the college for study. In all, we have had four periods of experimentation with him, two in 1931, one in 1932 and one in 1933. But his extra-sensory perception ability has gone through a marked decline from the beginning. The regular experiments are summed up in Table XII. The conditions are very much the same from period to period. Note the rate of decline as shown in the 7th column, "Average per 25". By P.C. is meant pure clairvoyant perception, as distinct from P.T. or pure telepathy, with no object present, or Gen. E.S.P., which combines the two conditions experimentally.

TABLE XII

Decline of Ability in Extra Sensory Perception, A.J.L.

The total value of these 4,505 clairvoyant trials is best measured by the value of X found by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the separate values of X in column 6. This gives 21.82, a relatively tremendous value. The average per 25 is 6.7 or 1.7 above np.

p. 65

The decline of Linzmayer's ability is here more long-drawn-out than that of Miss Weckesser or Mr. Pratt. But they may properly be linked together.

Before dismissing the regular clairvoyant data of Linzmayer there is one special condition in the last series (March, 1933) in Table XII that deserves emphasis. In the work with Pearce we introduced the "D.T." condition, first demonstrated by Pearce, so far as I know, which is simply that a shuffled and cut pack of the cards is put before the subject and he calls off the whole 25 without any one touching the pack or removing the cards as called (as is usually done under the "B.T." condition). They are recorded as called and are checked up at the end of the run of 25. This sweeps away all possibility of using the normal vision of the backs of the cards as a guide to calling. Linzmayer was given 1000 trials under this condition, alongside 1000 in the old way ("B.T.") of picking the card off the top of the pack after each call and piling them up, still face down, on another pile. The 2000 in Table XII are made up of these B.T. and D.T. trials. With a value of X = 4.6 we have, even at the low rate of scoring, a significant case for clairvoyant E.S.P. But the most valuable feature is, I think, the fact that Linzmayer did better at D.T. than at B.T. We have other cases of this. Better not to give the senses a "chance to get in the way", perhaps. (cf. Chapter 12, on the point of abstraction.) One suggestive relation of the D.T. scores of Linzmayer is shown by the comparison of the total number of hits he got in the various layers of 5's down through the pack. He seems to get them easier in the top 5 and the bottom 5, and the hardest of all in the 2nd 5 and next hardest in the center. This will be chiefly interesting in comparison with other similar curves to be presented later.

But at the same time we introduced Linzmayer to the D.T. condition, we tried him out for the first time on the P.T. or pure telepathy condition. This requires the use of images by the agent, without any objective record in existence until after the trial is over. No cards are held or looked at, not even little pencil sketches. The same Zener figures are used as images in the mind of the agent, for case comparison. The order of choice of image is deliberately varied from one run to another, with freedom to repeat or vary in any conceivable way. The 1000 P.T. trials gave a positive deviation of 41, 4.8 times the p.e. and slightly better than the P.C. (clairvoyance) of either type. To find Linzmayer capable of both modes of E.S.P. was at this time a most interesting discovery indeed. This relationship of P.C. and P.T. is an old problem in the field, still unsolved, and will become one of our most important points of attack as we go on. The data just referred to are presented in Table XIII.

p. 66

TABLE XIII

Comparison of D.T., B.T., and P.T., A.J.L., 1933

In March, 1932, in the midst of the work for regular scoring, which averaged 6.8 in 25, I asked Linzmayer to take 6 gr. of the narcotic drug sodium amytal. He willingly did so, but a half hour later insisted it had no effect upon him. It appeared not to, and so I added another 6 gr. capsule, making a large dose. He still, by exerting strong effort, resisted any marked signs of dissociation and I added 3 gr. more. The 15 gr. made him quite jolly, a bit incoherent in speech, frank and talkative but thick-tongued, and unable to walk fully straight. His senses still were clear and perception not impaired to a degree that incapacitated him. But his E.S.P. was entirely unable to function. His clairvoyant capacity was gone. In this condition I put him through 275 trials, with a total score of 56 (only 1 above chance). Before and after this he ran at a level of 6.8 or about 35% above chance average. The amytal appeared to destroy for the time all capacity to perceive extra-sensorially and to do so before it destroyed sense perceptual capacity itself.

There are a number of fragments of data with Linzmayer that are not of great value, because incomplete. One of these I shall mention because of its interesting curve effect. In order to work with Linzmayer at a distance, I sent to Miss Helen Turner, Librarian at Navesink, N. J., who kindly offered to assist, 50 sealed and numbered envelopes containing Zener cards. These were called by Linzmayer 6 times with attempt at clairvoyant perception. The conditions were apparently unfavorable (the work was done in a public place—the library), as I think I can now better understand. He got only a chance expectation yield. But, like Frick's experiment, there is an internal relationship of importance in the form of a curve of running, a decline curve in the number of successes per 10's in the daily runs of 50. The rate of scoring fell off with the order of 10's in the run of 50. Totalling the first 10 calls in the 6 times over the 50 envelopes, we find 19 correct, where 12 is np. The hits in totals by order of 10's in the 50, are 19, 13, 15, 9, 4. This makes a pretty fair decline curve, suggesting that Linzmayer, as he went, got off the track to the point even of going well below chance, almost significantly below. The result, 4, is a deviation of —8 4 2.1, nearly 4 times the p.e. And again, as with Frick, the extremes of the decline, with a positive deviation of 7 and a negative of 8, give a difference (15) that is significantly large (5 times) in its ratio to the p.e. of the difference, which is 3.

p. 67

The other fragments of our work with this major subject I shall, for reasonable brevity, include in a group, along with the data just described, labelled briefly and of necessity incompletely as Table XIV.

TABLE XIV

Scraps from the Linzmayer Workshop

In order to strike a total estimate of the "anti-chance-theory" value of the whole Linzmayer work, including the entire 8,724 trials, we compute the value of X= √(17.9)²+(6.9)²+(8.0)²+(5.7)²+(1.9)²+(4.8)²-(3.6)², from the various values from the separate experiments. The "Low-Score" value is subtracted, merely as a concession to any who may question our grounds for regarding this low-scoring as a purposely induced negative deviation. Rather, it should be added, since it, too, shows an "anti-chance" factor, presumably, I think, the same as that which usually works positively. But it matters little either way. We arrive, then, at the imposing value of 21.9. Even if we grossly neglected distribution and diverse conditions, and lumped all together, the value of X would still be 13.2; this leaves nothing against which to complain in our principles of grouping of data. Taken either way, whether lumped off or labelled, they are still safely behind the value of 13.2 for X. This makes the odds in favor of the E.S.P. factor, and against chance, away up beyond the trillions again, and well into the zone of entire safety. Combined with the final figure for X from Chapter IV, we have as the accumulated value against the explanation of mere "chance" for the 32,274 trials thus far covered, √(22.7)² + 21.9)² = 31.5.

Footnotes

62:1 Rev. Phil., 1884.